Yeah I think a third server is a very stupid, long-term move from Plarium. Sorry to be so blunt, but yeah ... 

Zhiar said:

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

Zhiar said:

You're just playing on test server that's why you don't understand.  Since you introduce server 2, the number of new players in server 1 declined greatly. Before, it's normal that 5 random players will join a coalition every month but you can see lots of small coalitions now are no longer growing. Our coalition for example, no new random players joined for 4 months. And now you introduced another server. You're destroying the hope of small coalitions to grow.

If a Coalition can't grow, it can always merge with other Coals. Bigger teams are more successful in both: finding new members (most of the new players prefer joining a big Coa) and accomplishing Achievements/Tournaments/Missions/etc.

Even if they merge, they will slowly die. We all know that players quit for so many reasons and new players enter the game. But since you introduced server 2, new players were outnumbered by those who quit and now you introduced another one?

I would suggest that you should ask players feedback in a survey form "before" the updates. Not "after" because once it's implemented, it's almost impossible to take it back.

As I've said before, I can give details how so many players quit the game because of your unwise changes. We all know that developers have their own vision of the game but it doesn't mean it's the right one.

Hi there! I got you point, but there are a huge number of reasons why we need to add new servers. It's not so bad as you think, Archon. 

The more servers, the more diluted server 1 becomes.  Server 1 is slow, server 2 is dead and now server 3?

Alina Bright said:

Hi there! I got you point, but there are a huge number of reasons why we need to add new servers. 

RIX said:

The more servers, the more diluted server 1 becomes.  Server 1 is slow, server 2 is dead and now server 3?

We'll see, Archon.  

Well, as Alyona said vision, development plans, strategies of the game,,,,blah...blah....blah.....it is not necessary that what admins do is utmost truth and will be good for company...You guys too have known the so called good companies of the past, how and why they failed....if you guys dont examples of those companies...send me a PM , i will say....

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

d3vnul said:

Out of curiosity , where the heck do you pull the updates/changes/ideas from ? (except the google analytics embedded into the game for tracking/"marketing" purposes). For sure not from your players feedback.

The kind of attitude "Don't worry" is just wrong. Hope i live the day when i can see feedback conducted changes to the game (PUBLIC DEBATE).

If you have any suggestions, you can leave them on forum, and they will be passed to our devs. However, please remember that our devs also have their own vision of the game, development plans, etc.

Alyona,

What exactly is the developers' vision for the game?

I would like to know if I am wasting my time please.

If no answer, I think I will find something else to play, because I don't see something sensible progressing here. However, will listen to your response first.

Thanks

Wy San Luis said:

Alina Bright said:

Hi there! I got you point, but there are a huge number of reasons why we need to add new servers. 

What are those?

For example, to control server overload. 

Alina Bright said:

RIX said:

The more servers, the more diluted server 1 becomes.  Server 1 is slow, server 2 is dead and now server 3?

We'll see, Archon.  

who are you ? the next bringer of headaches 

agaghas said:

Alyona,

What exactly is the developers' vision for the game?

I would like to know if I am wasting my time please.

If no answer, I think I will find something else to play, because I don't see something sensible progressing here. However, will listen to your response first.

Thanks

Hi! Alyona meant that we have our own plan for updates which need to be added to the game. Of course, we keep in mind all players' suggestion, but we still believe our ideas not so bad as you think :) 

Alina Bright said:

Wy San Luis said:

Alina Bright said:

Hi there! I got you point, but there are a huge number of reasons why we need to add new servers. 

What are those?

For example, to control server overload. 

Also, you could try play on new server and it can be profitable for you: new friends, new Coa, new enemies, new adventure :) 

Nuevo servidor : los mismos amigos, las mismas coaliciones, los mismos visa.

En el segundo servidor está comprobado y el tercero dentro de poco será igual, solo cambiará que los jugadores inactivos desaparecerán.

Nuevo servidor : los mismos amigos, las mismas coaliciones, los mismos visa.

En el segundo servidor está comprobado y el tercero dentro de poco será igual, solo cambiará que los jugadores inactivos desaparecerán.

server 2 is dying  because I coal of coiners control that server . that server is wall to wall dead cities. what makes you think best squad coiners wont do the same on server 3

They are doing so that casual new players do not enter the first server and make it more slow. The serious players from server 3 can switch to server for real fun. Recruit players from there. And also there is the added benefit for some players to start afresh

Ashu said:

They are doing so that casual new players do not enter the first server and make it more slow. The serious players from server 3 can switch to server for real fun. Recruit players from there. And also there is the added benefit for some players to start afresh

Each server will continue growing. However, concentrating all players on one big server may result in overload that makes server too big. We were already forced to limit the max. travel time between the Cities in the past, because servers became so big, that you would need days, if not weeks, to attack someone on another end of the map.

So if only one server continues growing, it won't be so healthy anymore. 

Some of our players asked us to remove all inactive Cities, to make the Map smaller and to make competition more interesting. We tried that in our new game - dynamic Map automatically deletes all inactive Cities there, and only active players remain on the Map. 

However, it had pros and cons. As all your neighbors are active players, it's extremely hard to raid for Rss and not get destroyed right after that. So now our devs are considering some changes to this algorithm. We don't know how it will look like, but we are looking for a solution. 

Ashu said:

They are doing so that casual new players do not enter the first server and make it more slow. The serious players from server 3 can switch to server for real fun. Recruit players from there. And also there is the added benefit for some players to start afresh

Each server will continue growing. However, concentrating all players on one big server may result in overload that makes server too big. We were already forced to limit the max. travel time between the Cities in the past, because servers became so big, that you would need days, if not weeks, to attack someone on another end of the map.

So if only one server continues growing, it won't be so healthy anymore. 

Some of our players asked us to remove all inactive Cities, to make the Map smaller and to make competition more interesting. We tried that in our new game - dynamic Map automatically deletes all inactive Cities there, and only active players remain on the Map. 

However, it had pros and cons. As all your neighbors are active players, it's extremely hard to raid for Rss and not get destroyed right after that. So now our devs are considering some changes to this algorithm. We don't know how it will look like, but we are looking for a solution. 

All active cities closer and a few or no bot lines to compensate resources. This would be ideal. I want this to happen